BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2083
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 2083 (Committee on Education) - As Introduced: February 18,
2010
SUBJECT : School accountability
SUMMARY : Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and State Board of Education (SBE) to use the closest
approximation, using existing data, of the graduation rate
defined pursuant to federal regulations related to Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, if that rate can not
be calculated, in applying the methodology specified in state
statute for identifying persistently lowest achieving schools.
EXISTING STATE LAW :
1)Requires the SPI and SBE to identify persistently lowest
achieving schools using a specified methodology that includes
identification of any high school that has had a graduation
rate, as defined in Section 200.19 (b) of Title 34 of the Code
of Federal regulations, which is less than 60 percent in each
of the previous three years.
2)Requires the SPI to notify the governing board of a school
district, county superintendent of schools, or the governing
body of a charter school or its equivalent, that one or more
of the schools in its jurisdiction have been identified as a
persistently lowest-achieving school.
3)Requires, for purposes of implementing the federal Race to the
Top (RTTT) program, the governing board of a school district,
county superintendent of schools, or the governing body of a
charter school or its equivalent, to implement one of the four
specified reform interventions in any school identified as
persistently lowest achieving using the statutorily specified
methodology, unless the SPI and SBE determine, to the extent
allowable under federal law, that the school has implemented a
equivalent reform within the last two years and is showing
significant progress in turning around that school.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW requires a state to implement the same
methodology for identifying persistently lowest achieving
AB 2083
Page 2
schools under RTTT to be used for application for awards from
the School Improvement Fund (SIF, formerly referred to as School
Improvement Grants or SIG) and for application for funding from
the School Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : In February 2009, Congress passed and President
Obama signed into law ARRA, which provides billions of dollars
of support for education that is being provided to states in the
form of both formula and competitive grants. According to the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), California is receiving
approximately $6 billion in formula grants. ARRA also provided
nearly $5 billion in funding to be used nationwide in a
discretionary manner, including for competitive grant programs,
by the U.S. Secretary of Education; this provision of ARRA was
the genesis for what has come to be known as the RTTT program.
According to USDOE, RTTT is, "A competitive grant program
designed to encourage and reward States that are creating the
conditions for education innovation and reform; achieving
significant improvement in student outcomes, including making
substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement
gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring
student preparation for success in college and careers; and
implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform
areas:
1)Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to
succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the
global economy;
2)Building data systems that measure student growth and success,
and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve
instruction;
3)Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective
teachers and principals, especially where they are needed
most; and
4)Turning around our lowest-achieving schools."
Also according to USDOE, it is possible that California could
qualify for up to $700 million in RTTT one-time funding,
depending on the nature of the state's plan and various other
AB 2083
Page 3
factors; however, since this grant program is competitive, it is
also possible that California will receive no funding under this
program.
On July 29, 2009, the USDOE issued a preliminary notice of
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for states applying for RTTT grants. After a period of
extensive public comment and revision, final guidance was
released on November 18, 2009. Phase 1 applications for the
grant were due by January 19, 2010; California submitted a Phase
1 application and requested $1 billion in funding, but was not
named as a finalist for Phase 1. In late March of 2010 it was
announced that two states, Tennessee and Delaware were awarded
Phase 1 grants. States that did not secure a Phase 1 award have
been provided reviewers' comments on their Phase 1 applications,
and will be allowed to apply for Phase 2 funding prior to a June
1, 2010 deadline. Phase 2 awards will be made in September of
2010.
Turning around persistently lowest-achieving schools is one of
the four major components of RTTT, which requires states to have
legal, statutory or regulatory authority to intervene in
persistently lowest-achieving schools, identify persistently
lowest-achieving schools, and show how the state will support
LEAs identified as persistently lowest-achieving in implementing
one of four intervention models as follows:
1)Turnaround model: Replace the principal and 50 percent of the
existing staff; implement strategies to recruit, place and
retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of
students; use data to improve instructional program; provide
high-quality professional development that is aligned with the
school's instructional program; among others.
2)Restart model: Convert a school to a charter school, or close
and reopen a school under a charter school operator, a charter
management organization, or an education management
organization.
3)School closure: Close a school and enroll the students in
other higher achieving schools in the LEA.
4)Transformation model: Similar to the Turnaround model,
replace the principal and develop strategies focusing on
principal and teacher effectiveness, instructional reform,
AB 2083
Page 4
increasing learning time and creating community-oriented
schools, and providing operational flexibility and support.
SB 1 X5 (Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-2010 Fifth
Extraordinary Session, mandates the methodology for identifying
persistently lowest-achieving schools by identifying the
lowest-achieving five percent of all schools in Program
Improvement under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the
lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools that are
eligible for but do not receive Title 1 funds, and any high
school with a graduation rate less than 60 percent in each of
the last three years. This methodology also excludes, to the
extent allowable by federal law, county community schools,
juvenile court schools, schools that provide educational
services exclusively to individuals with exceptional needs, and
any school that has experienced academic growth of at least 50
points on the API over the previous five years, unless the SPI
and the SBE find cause not to exclude these schools. SB 1 X5
also authorizes the SPI and the SBE, to the extent allowable
under federal law, to exclude a community day school from the
definition. The total number of schools that would be deemed
persistently lowest-achieving using this methodology is unknown,
but is estimated to be between 100 and 200 schools. The CDE has
implemented a similar, but not equivalent, methodology to
identify schools eligible for SIF awards and has identified a
total of 188 schools. In addition, SB 1 X5 requires the SPI to
notify the governing board of a school district, a county
superintendent of schools or the governing body of a charter
school or its equivalent that one or more of the schools in its
jurisdiction have been identified as a persistently
lowest-achieving school. SB 1 X5 also requires, for purposes of
implementing the federal RTTT program, each of those educational
entities with a persistently lowest achieving school identified
by this statutory methodology to implement one of the four
intervention models required by the RTTT, unless the SPI and the
SBE determines that the school has implemented a reform within
the last two years that conforms to one of the intervention
models.
After passage of SB 1 X5, CDE staff notified legislative staff
that they would be unable to implement that part of the
methodology identifying high schools with a graduation rate less
than 60 percent in each of the last three years, because the
data necessary to calculate the graduation rate defined in
federal regulations and specified in SB 1 X5 were not available.
AB 2083
Page 5
In fact, CDE staff indicated that a strict application of state
statute in this respect would yield zero high schools with a
graduation rate, as specified, less than 60 percent in each of
the previous three years, since the data was not available to
calculate such a graduation rate.
In order to identify schools eligible for SIF awards, the CDE
implemented a methodology that made use of a graduation rate
other than that specified in state statute and, thus, other than
that defined in federal regulations; CDE's methodology also
averaged this graduation rate over a four year period. This
approach identified 5 high schools. The CDE methodology,
however, is clearly not that specified in state statute. Since
the statutory methodology, including the specific definition of
graduation rate, must be implemented independent of any federal
program, the amendment proposed in this bill is necessary in
order to provide authority to the SPI and SBE to use a
graduation rate that can be calculated with existing data when
implementing the statutory methodology for identifying
persistently lowest achieving schools. By using the best
available approximation of the specified graduation rate in each
of the three previous years, the SPI and SBE would be able to
identify high schools having a graduation rate less than 60
percent pursuant to statute and consistent with the intent of
the Legislature.
Committee amendments: Committee staff recommends that the bill
be amended to clarify that the closest possible approximation of
the specified graduation rate be calculated in each of the
previous three years, consistent with the legislative intent of
SB 1 X5.
Previous legislation: SB 1 X5 (Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statutes
of 2009-2010 Fifth Extraordinary Session, makes comprehensive
changes to the Education Code consistent with the federal RTTT
program, and addresses the four RTTT policy reform areas of
standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction,
great teachers and leaders and turning around the
lowest-achieving schools (including establishing the statutory
methodology for identifying persistently lowest achieving
schools). AB 8 X5 (Brownley), held at the request of the author
in Senate Education, introduced the methodology for identifying
persistently lowest achieving schools that was later amended to
conform to final federal guidance on RTTT and become the
language that was included in SB 1 X5.
AB 2083
Page 6
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Small School Districts' Association
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087